Discussion in 'The Guru's Pub' started by Makalu, Dec 9, 2009.
The government lie to the people? Heaven forbid! I trust the government (any government) implicitly, with all my heart and soul - about as far as I can push a mountain out of position!
And the people who oppose the government never lie?
What the fuk are you all arguing about like little kids... Trying to sound all philosophical and ****...
It's really entertaining watching you guys debate some mundane thing .
Please quote my post and continue the argument, I insist.
That's k, I was just hoping that in 3 days with me agitating people somebody would have noticed that 110,000,000m^3 is only a sphere of about 0.6km in diameter. A sphere with a diameter of 1.6km or 1 mile has a radius of 800m and a volume of 2,144,660,584.85 m^3.
4/3 pi r^3
There was of course a caveat and the image wasn't a created by a sphere. However, I still hoped somebody would mention it so that the discussion could move forward.
Stukov, Those who speak do not know. And those who know, do not speak.
Just like gordon freeman. I TOLD you!
well I noted early on how there seemed to be two camps on the issue...either it was a missile or something else and nobody considering that it could be a missile AND something else. To simply say "it was a missile" doesn't explain the phenomenon. If it answers your particular questions about the event then it's "true" but different people have different questions about what they see there.
And people who say "the Russians said it was a missile" annoy me just as much as conspiracy theorists because the Russians didn't say that. They said they launched a Bulava missile from a sub in the white sea sometime that morning and it failed at 3rd stage separation and I think that's the extent of the press release. I know they didn't comment on the phenomenon at all and say it was caused by their rocket.
You can't use evidence and logic to persuade a conspiracy theorist because they don't arrive at their own conclusions thru logic or evidence...they subscribe to the conspiracy theory because it fits their fundamental world view, mind set and perspective.
People who demand a scientific method annoy me too because there's no such thing...it was just some BS some philosopher came up with to try and validate his philosophy and world view. It's a failed attempt to give a logical analysis of how empirical knowledge depends on evidence. Yes I know it's taught in science class but it's not what real scientists do. Here's how the National Science Teachers Association defines the nature of science:
* Scientific knowledge is simultaneously reliable and tentative. Having confidence in scientific knowledge is reasonable while realizing that such knowledge may be abandoned or modified in light of new evidence or reconceptualization of prior evidence and knowledge.
* Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work.
* Creativity is a vital, yet personal, ingredient in the production of scientific knowledge.
* Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements in the production of scientific knowledge.
* Contributions to science can be made and have been made by people the world over.
* The scientific questions asked, the observations made, and the conclusions in science are to some extent influenced by the existing state of scientific knowledge, the social and cultural context of the researcher and the observer's experiences and expectations.
and a few quotes on the subject by some real scientists...
"I spent many years trying to distinguish fruitfully between one or more scientific methods, and various methods used by historians, lawyers, medical doctors, people in general, etc. I used to teach courses in history of science, and occasionally philosophy of science for a philosophy department. I was never able to find a convincing set of arguments which showed that the methods of scientists differed in some fundamental way from methods used in other fields. That is, logical reasoning was of the same nature throughout, uses of precedent and past experience were of the same nature, uses of observation, evidence and (when available) experiment were of the same nature, and so on." ~Gordon Fisher
"The scientist has no other method than doing his damnedest." ~P.W. Bridgman
"What appears to [the working scientist] as the essence of the situation is that he is not consciously following any prescribed course of action, but feels complete freedom to utilize any method or device whatever which in the particular situation before him seems likely to yield the correct answer. In his attack on his specific problem he suffers no inhibitions of precedent or authority, but is completely free to adopt any course that his ingenuity is capable of suggesting to him. No one standing on the outside can predict what the individual scientist will do or what method he will follow. In short, science is what scientists do, and there are as many scientific methods as there are individual scientists." ~Percy W. Bridgman -- "On Scientific Method"
I encourage you all to feel free to do your damnedest to annoy me....
LOL That is useless... where is the gravity ? the wind direction? in that show lol...
Oh now, in our atmosphear, there isnt wind, gravity and more stuff, is it 0 gravity and it can create that perfect spiral?
Come on lol...
it isnt a rocket
Just looking at the video it's clearly a spinning rocket.
its already been said that this thing was outside our atmosphere: no wind, and greatly decreased effect from gravity. such is my understanding, anyway
In the thermosphere where the missile failed, wind resistance is very close to zero. (the air pressure ranges from 1 / 101,325 to 1 / 1*10^12 of what you feel at ground level). The air pressure at this altitude is probably part of the reason why we don't use nukes to shoot down nukes, there's not enough shockwave.
By Newtons laws of motion we know that the gas or ejected material will continue traveling in the direction & speed it was ejected at until a force exerts itself on it. Given two facts, that the air resistance is extremely low and ICBM's travel in orbit you can deduce that for a short period of time the gas will be projected temporarily into orbit. I would by no means suggest a stable orbit, however for the duration that this phenomenon was visible I'd consider it reasonable to conclude that gravity would not overmuch warp the clouds.
It's clearly some kind of rocket in my opinion. All the evidence points towards this conclusion and that's what it looks like to me. If someone wants to "believe" it's something else then that is their right. Just like it's the right (in most cultures) to believe in religion or God. To each their own...
What does it mean to "believe" in something? Does it mean the same thing for everyone? Is it an uncompromising position, or do beliefs "change" with time? Are "opinion" and "belief" the same thing?
When it comes to the concept of "learning" and the development of critical thinking skills, an understanding of the relationship between "belief," "opinion," and "facts" is essential. "Learning" involves acquiring new information, and for that information to be processed and understood clearly, it must relate, in some way, to concepts that an individual already knows. Simply put, if a new idea does not fit into what a person "already knows" or thinks is necessary, it will be seen as unimportant and promptly forgotten.
So, in learning, if a person is asked to learn a concept he or she "does not believe in," little or no significant learning will take place... If you believe it's a UFO no amount of facts or logic will really persued you from thinking otherwise.
EA teasing Dead Space 2
Blizzard teasing Starcraft 2
Actually the largest reason we don't nuclear weapons to shoot down nuclear weapons is that detonation causes an extreme ionization of the atmosphere.
The biggest problem is by the time you are likely to "intercept" the missile it is already separated and coming down in free fall leaving only the small MIRV, and even if you did hit it, you effectively destroy your chances of communication (knocking out satellites with bigger EMP) and surveillance.
US military had nuclear scenarios built around the idea that should nuclear war be fought the best chance of "defense" was accepting that there is losses that cannot be prevented, but if we have the correct offense we can prevent more attacks from coming (basically playing chess with nuclear sites). Playing chess blind doesn't adhere well to victory.
from all this jibberish you where saying past few pages,.. what do you think it was then if not a missile / rocked??? simple answer.
because you look like a fool who likes to argue for no reason , no offense
Knowing what it was would require knowledge I don't think any of us have or could attain.
I don't think it is Bulvaria missile, however the most supporting evidence I can discern it some new top secret missile design shown over Norway because Obama's peace prize acceptance, though possibilities of "gateways", wormholes, other worldly technology, or exotic this worldly technology remain possible. These possibilities are difficult to prove even, because we lack knowledge about them. We do know that it is possible for wormholes to exist naturally in the universe, but should one occur we don't know what it would look like or what evidence it would leave behind.
We do know quite abit about missile technology, so it is much easier trying to disprove if it was a certain kind of missile rather than try to prove any of the other possibilities. From all the evidence I have seen and research I have done, it is not possible to discount it is a missile of some type, though I think it is probably safe to say (in my opinion) it was not a Bulvaria missile.
There has been evidence this has occurred before similarly in Russia and China, I await for it to happen again far from these regions (like South America, Africa, etc), because that would severely dampen likelihood of it being a "run away missile".
I'm thinking the big spiral is either frozen unburnt liquid fuel which would flash into a gas from the pressure drop and then freeze into tiny crystals like the noctilucent clouds are made of or it could just be frozen water vapour from burning exhaust too and NASA's experiment put a bunch of dust up where there's normally none or very little and that's made it possible for crystals to form or easier for crystals to form or more to form or bigger crystals or something like that
or it could be a door way to another realm
i had a dream i used a microwave with its door off and ran it and opened a doorway